Nope. On Polina's under-rotated jump, for example, she's traveling toward the camera from the upper left to the lower right (rotating counterclockwise), and her toe pick foot is roughly perpendicular to the camera on lift off, indicating she had pivoted less than a quarter rotation on the ice (in fact, you can already see the toe pick foot's left side when it hits the ice, so it was significantly less). She had over a quarter rotation's worth of leeway on her takeoff. She similarly had over a quarter rotation's worth of leeway for her flip that was in a combo as well.

You also forgot to mention that Polina so badly under-rotated that jump that she fell. So it's more like Mao's triple axel in the short program (which was also called for UR), as opposed to Mao's UR calls in the free skate.

Polina UR'd a Toe Loop on the back half of her combination. She didn't fall on it, it was deemed UR. The Jump she UR'd and fell was, IIRC, a Triple Flip, and that wasn't even in the same program. So I'm not going to go on about this part of your post.

I was just using it as an example. People don't get brownie points for pivoting LESS on the take-off. You don't get to use the extra cushion on the landing to avoid a '<' on that jump.

I'm curious then, is it that skaters with correct Lutz edge technique (such as Yuna, Polina, and Kostner) tend to pre-rotate less with the toe pick (even with their flips) than skaters that tend to flutz (such as Adelina and Mao)? Kostner seems to be another skater whose skates will still be facing the backwards half (have over a quarter rotation of leeway) on liftoff for some of the jumps and she usually doesn't flutz, right; from her 2014 Worlds SP, the replay of her triple flip-triple toe combo is of her coming fairly directly toward the camera during the flip, and it's pretty clear that she's not even close to sideways on her toe pick foot when it leaves the ice (although it's not close to directly backward either).

I think it will do good to explain the differences between the two take-off techniques and why most women (certainly more than men) pivot further than men, especially on this jump.

That's my "No," cause you're trying to make a definitive correlation between the two that would lead one to believe that if you pivot all the way it means you flutzed (not saying you're saying that, but it sort of infurs such).

My "Yes" is cause it is easier to pivot all the way on a Flutz because it is more easily possible to open the hip which unblocks the lower body, allowing it to rotate more easily. So yea, a skater with a Flutz will likely rotate all the way more often, which is why I said Lutzes tend to pivot less than most other jumps.

Figure Skating is currently completely mislead, hence why things like measuring jump rotation have not been given an official standard at all by the ISU. The decisions are made inconsistently, often without proper knowledge, and all behind the scenes.

You are saying Yuna couldn't win under the current ISU rules. Guess what- she didn't.

What I've read so far on this board were either tricking with math and score (by some mathguy), cheating with rotation (by you) or trolling with polictics (many posters). Not convinced.

The landing is directly related to where the takeoff is. Everything exists within a circle. Yu-Na's takeoff point is starting far earlier, thus her "acceptable landing point" is different than someone else who completely pre-rotates the jump.

Incorrect.

The landing is directly related to the direction of travel. That is how the judges know a UR jump from a non-UR jump, by measuring the angle at which the skate comes into contact with the ice on landing relative to the direction in which the jump is traveling. This is like... 8th grade mathematics, guy.

You're confusing a jump entrance with the take-off. They're not the same. The take-off is one point on the ice - the point where the skate leaves the ice. The Entrance is the Edge Entrance of the jump, which distinguishes one jump from another - the manner in which the skater approaches the take-off. While the entrance is on curves, the take-off is one point on the ice and the jump does not travel in a curve, but on in one direction across the ice - a straight line. The judges can evaluate the degree of pre-rotation and under-rotation by comparing the angle at which the skate leaves or touches the ice in relation to the line/direction in which the jump travels (which is not too hard to do if you're using pro software like Dartfish).

The fact that skaters enter on edges and have to exit on edges is why there is some leeway built into the take-off and the landing. The landing must be < 1/4 short, period. There is no funny math built into the system that says "if you prerotate less than half a rotation, you can underrotate by that extra amount and still not get deducted." It makes no sense.

That is not what I'm saying, nor is it what Yu-Na did. Also, jumps turn 180 degrees on the ice during the landing no matter where you land. Landing forwards just tends to make it so the blade is digging into the ice more.

The question isn't whether it turned x degrees on landing. The question is whether or not the point at which her skate touched the ice was within the margin of error in relation to the direction in which her jump was traveling. Jumps enter and land on circles, but the jump travels in a straight line in the air, which is why we can evaluate the landings in this way. See above. Again, 8th grade math.

On the Lutz jump, the "textbook" technique says that you don't pre-rotate on your toepick much at all. Therefore, how can we accurately judge this jump? Many people completely pre-rotate on their toepick and are in the air for far less time. Should this technique receive a deduction?

First Triple Lutz done by a lady, unless you're going to claim that you cannot see what is obvious even in the bad video quality, she clearly pivots quite a bit before leaving the ice.

The reason why the "textbook" doesn't have to say anything about the pivot is because the pivot has existed on jumps since decades ago, right when people started doing jumps, doubles (for sure), and especially on triples. No one stated that the degree to which everyone pivoted was the same, there are different body types, etc. There is some variation, which is why your logic makes no sense. It's a natural occurrence when jumping for the same reasons you stated (and more). For one, the jump is entered on a curve, so the body is already rotating when you take-off. Because of this, the toe pick does pivot on the ice before the skater leaves the ice. No one said it had to be 1/2 a rotation. Sometimes it is less. However technical panels have always allowed upwards of half a rotation on the take-off, cause they understand basic physics, and anything more (like in Toe Axels) has always been penalized.

Likewise, jumps more than quarter rotation short generally are penalized. I say generally, because the rules do seem to be applied stricter to some than to others.

I don't believe it should receive a deduction. Ice skating exists on curves and most other jumps require pre-rotation, up to a full 1/2 turn. However, you also can't punish people for having better technique and/or doing a jump such that they are pre-rotating less and thus creating more air rotation at the start of the jump. You logically must give extra leeway on the landing point for less pre-rotation. A one-half scale makes the most sense (ie - if you pre-rotate 1/4 turn less, you get 1/8 turn leeway on the landing).

Again, jump trajectory is an arc along a straight line. Jumps do not travel on curves so you're being ridiculous with this illogical defense of clear UR.

Also, different technique does not equate better technique. Some of Tim Goebel's jumps used different technique than Plushenko's, and they were still ridiculously good.

The jump was UR, so clearly the technique failed her to some extent...

Figure Skating is currently completely mislead, hence why things like measuring jump rotation have not been given an official standard at all by the ISU. The decisions are made inconsistently, often without proper knowledge, and all behind the scenes.

Ice skating exists on curves and most other jumps require pre-rotation, up to a full 1/2 turn. However, you also can't punish people for having better technique and/or doing a jump such that they are pre-rotating less and thus creating more air rotation at the start of the jump. You logically must give extra leeway on the landing point for less pre-rotation.

If the rules says you have to be within 1/4 of the landing, I don't see how that is punishing good technique, nor do I see how that is even good technique if one is short on the landing when the rules explicitly says don't be short on the landing. Yuna had a great take-off but hooked the landing.

For example, in this thread, one of the points of discussion is whether or not it counts for anything that Yuna hardly pre-rotates and is still facing backward when she lifts off, in terms of how much she has to rotate in the air and the allowed under-rotation due to that. Again, I would find it very odd for her coach to tell her "yes I want you to do an extra quarter revolution compared to many other skaters" if it leads to possible under-rotations and points deductions for them. Why put in the extra effort?

I don't know why Yu-Na and her coaches made the choices that they did, but I would think that she does that technique because it's the proper technique.

In addition, a jump with less pre-rotation is typically more explosive since it gets into the air faster, and typically bigger in terms of height and distance than a jump by a skater who pre-rotates more. Under the current system, it's also typically rewarded with more +GOE. There's a big difference in real-time between a lutz by Yu-Na Kim versus that by Michelle Kwan, Kristi Yamaguchi, or Yulia Lipnitskaia, all of whom pre-rotated their lutz more in order to try and finish their rotations.

I think it's important that skaters who pre-rotate less are credited for that. Otherwise, that would encourage the skaters to pre-rotate to the maximum in order to avoid the appearance of a UR on the landing. And the jumps will be more pre-rotated, smaller, and less explosive. Why is the appearance of a UR on the landing more important than how many rotations were done in the air [and a skater has completed the exact same number of rotations as a skater who has no appearance of a UR on landing but pre-rotated more]?

The protocols DO support exactly what Blades of Passion has been arguing. If you review the protocols of every competition and which jumps got UR, some technical specialists DO give leeway on the landing of a jump if the skater pre-rotates less, and give less leeway on the landing of a jump when the skater pre-rotated the jump more. It's not perfectly consistent but the evidence is there to support what Blades of Passion has been saying.

It's the only reasoning that would explain Mao Asada's UR issues over the past quad. It must have to do with how much she pre-rotates--because she pre-rotates her jumps to the maximum, even sometimes possibly over the 1/2 turn allowance, she has little to no leeway on underrotating on the landing. Hence she usually gets dinged if there is the slightest UR on landing, whether or not it is actually at the 1/4 mark where skaters are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt. She rarely gets the benefit of the doubt. Why? It must be due to the pre-rotation. The best example is usually her 3F in the SP over the past few years. She pre-rotates her flip beyond the average quarter-turn that other skaters take, and hence, the technical caller won't give her any leeway on any underrotation on landing.

Unlike Yuna, Mao's jumps (aside from the 2A) are always borderline <. She gets < calls a lot because she lands her jumps right at the 1/4 mark. Between Olympics and Worlds she has had < calls on the axel, flip, loop, and toe.

The technical specialist whose personal opinion is that the rule that they wrote shouldn't be interpreted how they wrote it?

The technical specialist in this thread didn't write the rule in question.

In any case, the rules are constantly evolving. Haven't you noticed? The ISU changes its mind about certain issues every year. The rules from 2010 don't apply anymore. They didn't always have 2 levels of underrotation levels, now they do. The penalty for incorrect edge take-offs has changed every few years. So there is plenty of room for disagreement when even the ISU changes its mind about matters every year.

Currently, the technical panel may only watch a skater's take-off in real time to determine if it is cheated. This could change, too, especially if more and more skaters decide to pre-rotate more in order to complete their jump.

I think it's important that skaters who pre-rotate less are credited for that. Otherwise, that would encourage the skaters to pre-rotate to the maximum in order to avoid the appearance of a UR on the landing.

It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks should be rewarded, only what the rules actually are.

Prerotation is not an unfair advantage; Underrotation is.

Originally Posted by jaylee

If you review the protocols of every competition and which jumps got UR, some technical specialists DO give leeway on the landing of a jump if the skater pre-rotates less, and give less leeway on the landing of a jump when the skater pre-rotated the jump more.

That is the disgusting reputation judging favoritism that has ruined figure skating. If the tech crews are not calling >¼ landing, they are not doing their job!

It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks should be rewarded, only what the rules actually are.

Prerotation is not an unfair advantage; Underrotation is.

Prerotation is most definitely an unfair advantage if you reward skaters who clearly pre-rotate more in order to "complete" the rotations and avoid the appearance of a UR on landing while punishing skaters who clearly pre-rotate less if they have even the appearance of a UR on landing--even when the number of rotations completed in the air is the same between the two.

Btw, cheating the take-off IS in the rules as a downgradable mistake. So yes, it's not only an unfair advantage, pre-rotating too much (by a half-turn) is against the rules anyway.

The current rules dictate that technical panels can only review take-offs in real-time, whereas landings can be scrutinized in slow-mo. That means it's easier for skaters to cheat the take-off versus cheating a landing and get away with it. But that doesn't mean that the latter is an actually worse mistake than the former, that's just that the result of current limitations of time/resources/technology. If the focus switches 100% to underrotation on landing and 0% to pre-rotation, all skaters will start pre-rotating their jumps as much as possible and the ISU would crack down in response (not to mention, the jumps would start all looking really bad).

That is the disgusting reputation judging favoritism that has ruined figure skating. If the tech crews are not calling >¼ landing, they are not doing their job!

What are you talking about? This kind of "favoritism" has nothing to do with a skater personally and everything to do with technique. Arguing that underrotation should be punished while pre-rotation is not taken into account would encourage all skaters to cheat their take-offs--which is already explicitly against the rules.

Arguing that underrotation should be punished while pre-rotation is not taken into account would encourage all skaters to cheat their take-offs--which is already explicitly against the rules.

I think you are missing the point. The jump should have two distinct features:

1) Prerotate by no more than half a turn.
2) Be within 1/4 turn of the landing.

You cannot make up for failing part 2 by getting extra credit for part 1. There is absolutely no purpose in having a rule stating a jump should be within 1/4 turn at the end if there are exceptions when a jump doesn't have to be within a 1/4 turn. Such an exception would be listed in the rules, wouldn't it? These elements are to be judged as the rules are, not what you think they should be to give your favorite skater an advantage.

I think you are missing the point. The jump should have two distinct features:

1) Prerotate by no more than half a turn.
2) Be within 1/4 turn of the landing.

You cannot make up for failing part 2 by getting extra credit for part 1. There is absolutely no purpose in having a rule stating a jump should be within 1/4 turn at the end if there are exceptions when a jump doesn't have to be within a 1/4 turn. Such an exception would be listed in the rules, wouldn't it? These elements are to be judged as the rules are, not what you think they should be to give your favorite skater an advantage.

Exactly, the rules are the rules, period. The UR rule has been in place long before CoP. The rotations are not added together.

Technical errors are not subjective, they are 100% mathematically provable.

I think you are missing the point. The jump should have two distinct features:

1) Prerotate by no more than half a turn.
2) Be within 1/4 turn of the landing.

You cannot make up for failing part 2 by getting extra credit for part 1. There is absolutely no purpose in having a rule stating a jump should be within 1/4 turn at the end if there are exceptions when a jump doesn't have to be within a 1/4 turn. Such an exception would be listed in the rules, wouldn't it? These elements are to be judged as the rules are, not what you think they should be to give your favorite skater an advantage.

That poster's argument was that underrotation was not an unfair advantage. My point was that it is, given that too much of it is explicitly prohibited.

And you've all missed a previous point made about Yu-Na Kim's landing on the second lutz--that by the time the blade was on the ice, she was within the 1/4 mark anyway. The only way you can argue she wasn't within the 1/4 mark is if you take a starting point of after she started pre-rotating--which is wrong since pre-rotation is supposed to count towards the total rotation of the jump, and if you applied that standard towards all other skaters, all their jumps would be UR as well. But some of the posters in this thread took screenshots using a ridiculous starting point of the jump to show as "evidence" that she underrotated the landings by 180 degrees or whatever.

Yes, I suppose you can argue about what point the toepick hit the ice, but if you've watched a lot of skaters' jumps in slow-mo, you'd be surprised at how many of them would be considered UR if you take the absolutely first moment when the toepick makes microscopic contact with the ice as the landing point.

The only way you can argue she wasn't within the 1/4 mark is if you take a starting point of after she started pre-rotating--which is wrong since pre-rotation is supposed to count towards the total rotation of the jump, and if you applied that standard towards all other skaters, all their jumps would be UR as well.

Prerotation is either acceptable (< 1/2) or not acceptable (> 1/2), the landing is either acceptable (< 1/4) or not (> 1/4). This whole measuring the jump from when the skater leaves the ice obscures the simple fact that you have to be within 1/4 turn of the straight line in which the jump is traveling through the air (and no more than a 1/2 turn of that line at the beginning).

Prerotation is either acceptable (< 1/2) or not acceptable (> 1/2), the landing is either acceptable (< 1/4) or not (> 1/4). This whole measuring the jump from when the skater leaves the ice obscures the simple fact that you have to be within 1/4 turn of the straight line in which the jump is traveling through the air (and no more than a 1/2 turn of that line at the beginning).